Cited by 20Forensic Anthropology and Bioarchaeology StudiesPacific and Southeast Asian StudiesDeath, Funerary Practices, and Mourning

Cultural Modifications in an Adolescent Earth-Oven Interment from Fiji: Sorting out Mortuary Practice

Open access
Pietrusewsky, Michael, Douglas, Michele T., Cochrane, Ethan E., Reinke, Scott·2007·The Journal of Island and Coastal Archaeology

Abstract

The incomplete skeletal remains of a young adolescent (10–12 years of age) recovered from the surface of an earth-oven in Qaranicagi Cave, Site Y2–39, Waya Island, Fiji are used to explore mortuary practices in these islands. Mortuary practices in Fiji are documented in explorer and missionary accounts, and a limited number of excavated burials. Additionally, cannibalism is ethnographically and archaeologically known in the region. Cannibalism appears to be temporally and spatially sensitive, and is only one of a variety of perimortem behaviors. Criteria for the determination of cannibalism in human bone assemblages from Fiji are applied to these remains with limited success. The unique interment of the Qaranicagi Cave skeletal remains may represent cannibalism and the first evidence for transportation of human flesh outside of a village context in Fiji, or it may represent a secondary deposit of portions of a cave burial.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/15564890701228579

Cites

47 of 47 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Only one fragment of a long bone shaft from the Qaranicagi midden context has evidence of cut marks.

    “Only one fragment of a long bone shaft has evidence of cut marks (Table 2).”

    From The Archaeology of Cannibalism: a Review of the Taphonomic Traits Associated with Survival and Ritualistic Cannibalism (2025) · cites this paper as Pietrusewsky et al., 2007

    The Additional information entry for Qaranicagi Cave, level IV 8 (page not provided), describes three lower-limb bone shaft fragments and says two exhibit faint cut marks. That contradicts the claim that only one shaft fragment has cut marks. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The MNI from the Qaranicagi midden context is four: two individuals from Layer IV, and two adults from Layers II and III.

    “Based on the presence of both adult and subadult cranial remains, the MNI from the midden context has been calculated as four: two individuals from Layer IV, and 2 adults from Layers II and III (Pietrusewsky et al., 2007).”

    From The Archaeology of Cannibalism: a Review of the Taphonomic Traits Associated with Survival and Ritualistic Cannibalism (2025) · cites this paper as Pietrusewsky et al., 2007

    The Qaranicagi Cave Excavations section (page unavailable) reports two adults from TU 2 and TU 3, primarily in Layers II and III. For TU 1 in Layer IV, however, it gives an MNI of “at least two or three,” so it does not establish an exact midden-context MNI of four. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Several long bones, ribs, a vertebra fragment and a clavicle from the Qaranicagi earth-oven display clustered cut marks.

    “Several long bones, ribs, a vertebra fragment and a clavicle also display clustered cut marks.”

    From The Archaeology of Cannibalism: a Review of the Taphonomic Traits Associated with Survival and Ritualistic Cannibalism (2025) · cites this paper as Pietrusewsky et al., 2007

    The Ribs section reports a series of six to eight cut marks on one rib, and the Femora passage describes groups of incisions on the left femur. Table 5 (page unavailable) lists marks on a cervical vertebra and clavicle only as possible cut marks; it does not establish clustered cut marks on those bones or on multiple ribs. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The 243 human fragments from the Qaranicagi midden context were commingled with remains of fish, birds, reptiles and small mammals.

    “The 243 human fragments were commingled with the remains of fish, birds, reptiles and small mammals.”

    From The Archaeology of Cannibalism: a Review of the Taphonomic Traits Associated with Survival and Ritualistic Cannibalism (2025) · cites this paper as Pietrusewsky et al., 2007

    The Qaranicagi Cave Excavations section says that midden from various excavation levels contained fish, birds, reptiles and mammals, including humans. It also describes miscellaneous human bone from the test units, but the passages do not establish a total of 243 human fragments or show that all 243 were commingled with those animal remains. No page numbers are available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Several long bones and ribs from the Qaranicagi earth-oven have evidence of burning.

    “Several long bones and ribs have evidence of burning.”

    From The Archaeology of Cannibalism: a Review of the Taphonomic Traits Associated with Survival and Ritualistic Cannibalism (2025) · cites this paper as Pietrusewsky et al., 2007

    The Burned bones section identifies five bones with modifications attributable to fire or heat: one rib fragment and four long bones. It says only the rib fragment shows clear burning; nearby ribs show no burning or scorching, and three of the long bones show heat-related cracking rather than discoloration. The claim overstates the evidence by referring to burned ribs in the plural. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 49 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 12

  1. Birks, L. 1973. Archaeological excavations at Sigatoka Dune site, Bulletin of the Fiji Museum 1. Suva: Fiji Museum.
  2. DeGusta, D. 1999. Fijian cannibalism: Osteological evidence from Navatu. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 110:215-241.
  3. DeGusta, D. 2000. Fijian cannibalism and mortuary ritual: Bioarchaeological evidence from Vunda. International Journal of Osteoarchaeology 10:76-92.
  4. Frost, E. L. 1979. Fiji. In The Prehistory of Polynesia (J.D. Jennings, ed.): 61-81. Canberra: Australian National University Press.
  5. Hunt, T. L. 1987. Patterns of human interaction and evolutionary divergence in the Fiji Islands. Journal of the Polynesian Society 96:299-334.
  6. Marshall, Y., A. Crosby, S. Matararaba and S. Wood. 2000. Sigatoka: The Shifting Sands of Fijian Prehistory. University of Southampton Department of Archaeology Monograph 1. Oxford: Oxbow Books.
  7. Parry, J. T. 1977. Ring-Ditch Fortification in the Rewa Delta, Fiji: Air Photo Interpretation and Analysis. Bulletin of the Fiji Museum 3. Suva: Fiji: The Fiji Museum.
  8. Parry, J. T. 1982. Ring-Ditch Fortification in the Navua Delta, Fiji: Air Photo Interpretation and Analysis. Bulletin of the Fiji Museum 7. Suva: Fiji: The Fiji Museum.
  9. Pietrusewsky, M., T. L. Hunt and R. Ikehara-Quebral. 1997. A new Lapita-associated skeleton from Fiji. Journal of the Polynesian Society 106:284-295.
  10. Rechtman, R. B. 1992. The Evolution of Sociopolitical Complexity in the Fiji Islands. Ph.D. Dissertation. Los Angeles: The University of California.
  11. Sand, C., F. Valentin and T. Sorovi-Vunidilo. 2000. At the border of Polynesia: Archaeological research in the East-Fijian Islands of Cikobia and Naqelelevu. In Indo-Pacific Prehistory: The Melaka Papers (P. Bellwood, D. Bowdery, J. Allen, E. Bacus, and G.R. Summerhayes, eds.):107-116. Canberra: Australian National University.
  12. Seemann, B. 1862. Viti. Cambridge: Macmillan.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Pietrusewsky, M., Douglas, M. T., Cochrane, E. E., & Reinke, S.
Affiliations
  • University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa (US)
  • University College London (GB)
Venue
The Journal of Island and Coastal Archaeology
Published
2007-05
Volume
2
Issue
1
Pages
44-71
ISSN
  • 1556-1828 (ISSN-L)
  • 1556-4894
OpenAlex
W2145545042
Cited by
20
References
49
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 1 · 2015: 1 · 2012: 5
FWCI
9.36
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The Journal of Island and Coastal Archaeology (publishedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Texas Christian University
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Archeology › Forensic Anthropology and Bioarchaeology Studies
  • Social Sciences › Geography, Planning and Development › Pacific and Southeast Asian Studies
  • Social Sciences › Anthropology › Death, Funerary Practices, and Mourning
Keywords
funerary practices, cannibalism, Fiji, cave burials, secondary deposits, cultural modification

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review